On 3/14/2012 6:01 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 14/03/12 09:48, Polleres, Axel wrote:
>> Just my two cents to emphasize that I tend to agree on that: I
>> believe we need DISTINCT() to address JC-4 and related comments in a
>> fashion agreeable to the commenters.
>
> Could you expand on "we need DISTINCT"? Is that just a technical point
> that DISTINCT covers more or a political point about the comments?
>
> What about the lesser case of just {*}{+} and *+ changes?
The feedback that Axel has received offline is that the commenters are
not clear on what the effects of mixing counting and non-counting
operators would be with respect to their original concerns, and so
adding those alone would not sufficiently address their concerns. They
would be satisfied by the inclusion of DISTINCT/ALL-PATHS.
Lee
>
> Andy
>
>